From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753872AbaE1FAI (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 May 2014 01:00:08 -0400 Received: from mail-we0-f172.google.com ([74.125.82.172]:46019 "EHLO mail-we0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752039AbaE1FAG (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 May 2014 01:00:06 -0400 Message-ID: <53856D51.40304@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 07:00:01 +0200 From: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo CC: mtk.manpages@gmail.com, lkml , "linux-man@vger.kernel.org" , netdev , =?UTF-8?B?T25kxZllaiBCw61sa2E=?= , Caitlin Bestler , Neil Horman , Elie De Brauwer , David Miller , Steven Whitehouse , =?UTF-8?B?UsOpbWkgRGVuaXMtQ291cm1v?= =?UTF-8?B?bnQ=?= , Paul Moore , Chris Friesen Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Re: recvmmsg() timeout behavior strangeness [RESEND] References: <536101C9.9090601@gmail.com> <20140512143451.GB13801@kernel.org> <20140521210535.GA5414@kernel.org> <537E0961.8040005@gmail.com> <20140526134647.GB8176@kernel.org> <20140526211706.GA25474@kernel.org> <5384BEC5.2080607@gmail.com> <20140527192115.GD25474@kernel.org> <20140527203010.GA2764@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <20140527203010.GA2764@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 05/27/2014 10:30 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > Em Tue, May 27, 2014 at 09:28:37PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) escreveu: >> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo >> wrote: >>> Em Tue, May 27, 2014 at 06:35:17PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) escreveu: >>>> On 05/26/2014 11:17 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: >>>>> Can you try the attached patch on top of the first one? >>> >>>> Patches on patches is a way to make your testers work unnecessarily >>>> harder. Also, it means that anyone else who was interested in this >>> >>> It was meant to highlight the changes with regard to the previous patch, >>> i.e. to make things easier for reviewing. >> >> (I don't think that works...) > > Lets try both then, attached goes the updated patch, and this is the > diff to the last combined one: What tree does this apply to? I tried applying to 3.15-rc7, but a piece was rejected, and the fix was not obvious. Cheers, Michael drivers/net/tun.c.rej --- drivers/net/tun.c +++ drivers/net/tun.c @@ -1343,7 +1343,7 @@ /* Read frames from queue */ skb = __skb_recv_datagram(tfile->socket.sk, noblock ? MSG_DONTWAIT : 0, - &peeked, &off, &err); + &peeked, &off, &err, timeop); if (skb) { ret = tun_put_user(tun, tfile, skb, iv, len); kfree_skb(skb);